Middle East Politics
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
There's very little I'd disagree there. Seems like a good summary as ever. In short, the clergy are despised in urban areas, particularly the younger generations. Though they still enjoy substantial support amongst the rural and poorer Iranians because of their social welfare policies and general conservatism that still remains ramptant outside of the major hubs. The alcohol anecdote is also true - an Iranian friend of mine was there recently and recalled a story where his relative simply made a phone call and someone in revolutionary guard attire rocked up in a motorcycle to drop off a few bottles
I'll also add this though - despite there being considerable resentment towards the regime, the vast majority of Iranians - young, progressive, secular or otherwise still deeply distrust the United states and its allies. They're not a stupid people, and still remain bitter over when the US had essentially coerced Saddam into invading them, the sanctions and the double standards regarding Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions. That last one is also an interesting one actually, since almost every Iranian I've spoken to has supported their country pursuing a nuclear program.
Having said that, I do disagree with your friend's bleak take on the future of the country. The clergy are a reactionary bunch but they're not stupid, they know that to survive they'll have to carry out progressive reforms to appease not only their poor base, but also the younger generations. These reforms had actually been going on for decades, particularly during the term of the reformist President Mohammad Khatami who introduced widescale reforms such as local elections, more rights for religious minorities, more freedom of press and a host of other laws aiming to broaden civil rights. The current President Rouhani is also somewhat of a reformer (by Iran's standards) and has himself pushed for more progressive initiatives such as negotiating the nuclear deal to lift sanctions (which the Trump administration and his Israeli/Saudi bedfellows are desperately trying to sabotage), warming relations with Europe and very recently passed a law whereby Women are no longer arrested if they don't wear a headscarf. I'm not saying we can expect Iran to become a beacon of tolerance and liberalism in the short term, but the country will continue to modernise, and even if its current state will remain a much more tolerant society than the regional allies of the US.
The highlighted bit is something that reminded me of another man, a well -known Russian journalist Vladimir Pozner, who went to Iran back when Ahmadinejad was in power. He said in his interview back home that people in general were very nice and friendly, and also one thing everyone seemed to agree on was that all Iranians he met including staunch opponents of the regime, they all were in favour of Iran having nuclear weapons. They basically told him, the USA has it, Russia has it, China has it, even Israel has it. How come we can't have it? And he admitted having trouble answering that without sounding like a hypocrite.
Yesterday, I went to a local protest gathering in support of the Iranian opposition, to hear about the POVs of activists who have a closer connection to what's going on, and about the conditions people opposed to the regime face in Iran. Since these things are talked about here too, I thought I'd share what I heard.
Those I spoke to generally said that censorship of information/communication makes it hard to correctly assess the situation. So this should partly be seen as educated guesses on the basis of general background knowledge and whatever information currently gets out of Iran. The following is my own recap of what people told me.
About the relationship between social and political protest
Everybody knows about the huge costs of the IRGC's activities in Arab countries, and the discrepancy between living conditions and huge investments in foreign wars is an obvious connection many people make. In that sense, social protest and political opposition to the regime itself aren't as easily seperatable as the pro-government narrative tries to claim. (Obviously, the gov's claims that the unrests are the result of foreign incitement are rejected.)
Public communication and social media
Social media is under heavy surveillance from the government. It's a constant cat and mouse game between them, closing down communication channels, and activists/interested people, who constantly try to establish new ones. This constellation is not restricted to political activities, but a general issue of internet censorship and a widespread desire among Iranians to circumvent it.
About the size of local unrests and the importance of organization
It's deemed only natural that the core of these protests is organized in some way. That includes students, illegal opposition groups, and very often family structures. Tight-knit groups, whose members are familiar with each other, are harder to infiltrate for Basij agents (who are a major danger for opposition activists) than loose gatherings. Plain-clothes regime stooges preferably arrest people who walk home alone after a protest. Larger, inflexible assemblies are also easier and likelier to be targeted by armed forces, like it happened in the first days.
Under these circumstances it's reasonable that many people would not readily join a random crowd of strangers as soon as they become aware of a protest going on, even if they are sympathetic. A certain carefulness and suspiciousness is a survival trait when things heaten up in a police state like Iran.
So all in all it's not considered surprising that the unrests have been restricted to smaller sizes after an initial flare up. Another point: Government rallies being comparatively large means little in terms of actual popular sympathy for either side, because the (pro-)government organizations are – obviously – well organized themselves, and supporters can join without fearing for their health or freedom.
The overall assessment is that the best these protests can achieve – and have already achieved – is a symbolic victory, by simply existing in the first place, and happening way beyond the geographical, social and temporal scale of minor incidents. This is considered a crucial statement in itself, because the dictatorship's ideological stability is dependent on an air of inevitability, achieved by paralysing potential opposition through fear. Criticism of the government can be widely distributed in a situation like the current one. It's also considered important that a significant portion of the unrest happened in rural areas so far considered to be safe hinterland for the regime.
-------
One issue these people want to bring attention to are the ongoing gatherings in front of the infamous Evin prison in Tehran, where parents (and others) continue to protest the detainment of their kids.
https://www.iranhumanrights.org/201...ith-arrest-for-holding-sit-in-at-evin-prison/
What I also found informative is this general overview from the perspective of Kurdish Iranians. It partly mirrors what's said above.
https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/or...rdish-areas-protests-sanandaj-kermanshah.html
Those I spoke to generally said that censorship of information/communication makes it hard to correctly assess the situation. So this should partly be seen as educated guesses on the basis of general background knowledge and whatever information currently gets out of Iran. The following is my own recap of what people told me.
About the relationship between social and political protest
Everybody knows about the huge costs of the IRGC's activities in Arab countries, and the discrepancy between living conditions and huge investments in foreign wars is an obvious connection many people make. In that sense, social protest and political opposition to the regime itself aren't as easily seperatable as the pro-government narrative tries to claim. (Obviously, the gov's claims that the unrests are the result of foreign incitement are rejected.)
Public communication and social media
Social media is under heavy surveillance from the government. It's a constant cat and mouse game between them, closing down communication channels, and activists/interested people, who constantly try to establish new ones. This constellation is not restricted to political activities, but a general issue of internet censorship and a widespread desire among Iranians to circumvent it.
About the size of local unrests and the importance of organization
It's deemed only natural that the core of these protests is organized in some way. That includes students, illegal opposition groups, and very often family structures. Tight-knit groups, whose members are familiar with each other, are harder to infiltrate for Basij agents (who are a major danger for opposition activists) than loose gatherings. Plain-clothes regime stooges preferably arrest people who walk home alone after a protest. Larger, inflexible assemblies are also easier and likelier to be targeted by armed forces, like it happened in the first days.
Under these circumstances it's reasonable that many people would not readily join a random crowd of strangers as soon as they become aware of a protest going on, even if they are sympathetic. A certain carefulness and suspiciousness is a survival trait when things heaten up in a police state like Iran.
So all in all it's not considered surprising that the unrests have been restricted to smaller sizes after an initial flare up. Another point: Government rallies being comparatively large means little in terms of actual popular sympathy for either side, because the (pro-)government organizations are – obviously – well organized themselves, and supporters can join without fearing for their health or freedom.
The overall assessment is that the best these protests can achieve – and have already achieved – is a symbolic victory, by simply existing in the first place, and happening way beyond the geographical, social and temporal scale of minor incidents. This is considered a crucial statement in itself, because the dictatorship's ideological stability is dependent on an air of inevitability, achieved by paralysing potential opposition through fear. Criticism of the government can be widely distributed in a situation like the current one. It's also considered important that a significant portion of the unrest happened in rural areas so far considered to be safe hinterland for the regime.
-------
One issue these people want to bring attention to are the ongoing gatherings in front of the infamous Evin prison in Tehran, where parents (and others) continue to protest the detainment of their kids.
https://www.iranhumanrights.org/201...ith-arrest-for-holding-sit-in-at-evin-prison/
What I also found informative is this general overview from the perspective of Kurdish Iranians. It partly mirrors what's said above.
https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/or...rdish-areas-protests-sanandaj-kermanshah.html
This is a bit long-winded, but it heats up around the 20 minute mark...
Israel, a haven for racist Jewish people only
Meet Jewish Voice for Peace, an NGO that advocates Israel's destruction, but objects to Israel prohibiting its members entry to the State.
https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/boycott-divestment-and-sanctions/jvp-supports-the-bds-movement/
Wait, do you actually believe this random, non-Iranian? That video is so full off crap I don’t know where to start.
So a democratic State where all are equal under the rule of law is now the same as the destruction of Israel? GTFOH...
Most educated Iranians hate the Mullahs. They also hate the US Government for the sanctions. Now the main gripe is the hike in prices. So it is a mixture of issues but one thing the Iranians all agree upon is foreign interference. They have not forgotten that the British with the help of CIA got rid of their only democratic government.
I am surprised how people believe all the BS spouted by the western media. When have Iran invaded any other country?
I am surprised how people believe all the BS spouted by the western media. When have Iran invaded any other country?
Well technically Iran invaded Iraq in 1982 and intermittently for six years after. Of course this was during the course of a war which Iraq initiated, so most people won't count it, although there is an argument to be made that Khomeini harbored real ambitions of 'liberating' the shrine cities (it was a regular feature of his war-time rhetoric) and that a ceasefire could have been achieved years before 1988 were it not for Khomeini's revolutionary ambitions. But we can give Iran a pass on that one.
I suppose the answer you're looking for is the invasions of Herat in the mid-19th century, prompted by the Russians in the context of the Great Game. Of course by that time Iran was a second-rate power over which Russia and Britain squabbled, which tells us the reason why it has been so long since Iran launched a conventional invasion of another country - it has been far too weak in modern times. When Iran has been strong historically, it has always projected power east into Afghanistan and beyond even to the Indus Valley, and west into the Arab Middle East and Anatolia.
In any case, the foreign policies of the Safavids, Nadir Shah, and Qajars and the Pahlavis are not necessarily all that relevant in terms of the Islamic Republic.
They want Israel to stop being a racist state, if Israel can't exist as anything other than a racist state, it shouldn't continue
Force yourself.
Not true. We have racist Christians, racist Muslims, racist Druze, racist Hindu's and racist atheists.
Unlike the Islamic utopia's where everybody gets along so peacefully, as long as they're not Christians, the wrong sort of Muslim, Druze, Hindu's and non-believing atheists.
Last edited:
They're*
Thanks.
Those people are present in Israel, but if they ever threatened to out number Jewish people they would be cleansed
UNITED NATIONS — Efforts by the Trump administration to marshal a muscular international response to Iran’s crackdown on anti-government protesters appeared to backfire on Friday, as members of the United Nations Security Council instead used a special session called by the United States to lecture the American ambassador on the proper purpose of the body and to reaffirm support for the Iran nuclear agreement.
It was an afternoon of high diplomatic theater that began with a passionate denunciation of Iran’s “oppressive government” by the American ambassador, Nikki R. Haley, and ended with the Iranian ambassador delivering a lengthy history of popular revolt in the United States — from the violent demonstrations at the Democratic National Convention in 1968 to the Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011.
In the interim, Council members did, one by one, condemn the Iranian government’s response during more than a week of protests. As of Friday, more than 20 people had been killed and hundreds had been arrested. The authorities have blocked access to social media and have blamed foreign “enemies” for instigating the unrest, a common refrain at times of upheaval that in this case the government has provided no evidence to support.
In her remarks, Ms. Haley said that the United States would remain steadfastly behind the Iranian protesters.
“Let there be no doubt whatsoever,” she said, “the United States stands unapologetically with those in Iran who seek freedom for themselves.”
But there was evidence of a mini-revolt brewing within the Security Council chamber, not only among traditional adversaries like Russia and China, but also among close allies like France and Sweden. Many seemed to fear that the outspoken criticism by the Americans was simply a pretext to undermine the Iran nuclear deal, which President Trump has long desired to scrap.
...........................
The Russian ambassador, Vasily A. Nebenzya, was more blunt. He asked rhetorically why the Security Council had not taken up the issue of Black Lives Matter protests in Ferguson, Mo., which were at times also met with a violent police response.
“The real reason for convening today’s meeting is not an attempt to protect human rights or promote the interests of the Iranian people, but rather as a veiled attempt to use the current moment to continue to undermine” the Iranian deal, Mr. Nebenzya said.
...........................
Such reticence to support the American position is the latest evidence of growing international resistance to the Trump administration’s foreign policy priorities, particularly at the United Nations. Last month, a large majority of United Nations members voted for a resolution denouncing the United States’ decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the American Embassy there.
.....................................
On Wednesday, the United States Mission to the United Nations held a cocktail reception for the nine countries that voted against the resolution in the General Assembly, which, aside from Israel, were Guatemala, Honduras, Togo, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru and Palau.
In a video message played at the reception, Mr. Trump thanked the attendees for “standing with the United States.”
He said that the vote would “go down as a very important date,” and that their support was “noted and greatly appreciated.”
It was an afternoon of high diplomatic theater that began with a passionate denunciation of Iran’s “oppressive government” by the American ambassador, Nikki R. Haley, and ended with the Iranian ambassador delivering a lengthy history of popular revolt in the United States — from the violent demonstrations at the Democratic National Convention in 1968 to the Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011.
In the interim, Council members did, one by one, condemn the Iranian government’s response during more than a week of protests. As of Friday, more than 20 people had been killed and hundreds had been arrested. The authorities have blocked access to social media and have blamed foreign “enemies” for instigating the unrest, a common refrain at times of upheaval that in this case the government has provided no evidence to support.
In her remarks, Ms. Haley said that the United States would remain steadfastly behind the Iranian protesters.
“Let there be no doubt whatsoever,” she said, “the United States stands unapologetically with those in Iran who seek freedom for themselves.”
But there was evidence of a mini-revolt brewing within the Security Council chamber, not only among traditional adversaries like Russia and China, but also among close allies like France and Sweden. Many seemed to fear that the outspoken criticism by the Americans was simply a pretext to undermine the Iran nuclear deal, which President Trump has long desired to scrap.
...........................
The Russian ambassador, Vasily A. Nebenzya, was more blunt. He asked rhetorically why the Security Council had not taken up the issue of Black Lives Matter protests in Ferguson, Mo., which were at times also met with a violent police response.
“The real reason for convening today’s meeting is not an attempt to protect human rights or promote the interests of the Iranian people, but rather as a veiled attempt to use the current moment to continue to undermine” the Iranian deal, Mr. Nebenzya said.
...........................
Such reticence to support the American position is the latest evidence of growing international resistance to the Trump administration’s foreign policy priorities, particularly at the United Nations. Last month, a large majority of United Nations members voted for a resolution denouncing the United States’ decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the American Embassy there.
.....................................
On Wednesday, the United States Mission to the United Nations held a cocktail reception for the nine countries that voted against the resolution in the General Assembly, which, aside from Israel, were Guatemala, Honduras, Togo, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru and Palau.
In a video message played at the reception, Mr. Trump thanked the attendees for “standing with the United States.”
He said that the vote would “go down as a very important date,” and that their support was “noted and greatly appreciated.”
What value do you see in that source? When I google her name, all that comes up is that she appears on Iranian State TV (PressTV) as a “foreign expert”. It has as much credibility as me filming myself, claiming various things, and sharing it here as an argument.
JVP advocate a 'right of return' for the Palestinians in line with UN Resolution 194. That would end Israel through demographics. Maybe you believe that would result in democracy where all are equal under the rule of law. I have my doubts.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/05/ghosts-in-the-propaganda-machine/
The Assad propaganda machine
The Assad propaganda machine
All his posts are complete fringe nonsense. We may as well counter them by contributing a few Alex Jones videos for balance.
This settles it, you belive Israel must be racist to be a nation
You say this sort of thing a lot Raoul. How about taking me to task with the actual content of links I post instead of constantly sniping at me for referencing sources you yourself choose not to trust? I know you strongly doubt any source not part of the mainstream. Do you also implicitly trust everything mainstream media has to say? Let's discuss subject matter rather than the character of posters. As a site administrator I don't think you're setting a good example.
This is not helpful, imo. I don't doubt that there is fake news, both in social and mainstream media. But to use an example of one or two bogus sources to disparage anyone suggesting Assad's government might be unfairly treated by MSM - well that's absurd and, as I say, unhelpful. As you might have gathered, I'm very interested in this subject, but don't recall ever having heard of these so-called journalists. I disagree with the statement in the last paragraph though...
I'm not sure they couldn't.
The Guardian appears to have gone over to the neocons lately, btw. Just have a look at Olivia Solon's bio and her piece smearing Vanessa Beeley's investigations into the White Helmets. A journalist in sunny California who had done nothing but cover tech gadgets and other consumer-related tidbits suddenly feels empowered to attack journalists who have actually been to Aleppo and interviewed civilians and investigated. There's more neocon bullshit about Syria coming out of the Guardian lately too.
Last edited:
She is credible, imo. You're not - so far. You could gain some credibility by exposing something she's said as false.
That article explains how so much of the output of many newly popular sites (like globalresearch.ca) has been p[roduced by a non-person which is quite blatantly the Syrian state.
There is good reason to distrust govts and the mainstream media when it comes to foreign policy, especially war. That does not mean you must trust other govts or non-mainstream media. What this article exposes is how easily the non-mainstream can be fake.
No, it doesn't. It exposes one or two sources I've never heard of. There is a hell of a lot of good stuff on globalresearch. To dismiss it all as fake, or as having been produced by the Syrian state, would be stupid and unfair. Fake news really should be exposed as such wherever it's found. The truth must have a platform though. It's very rare these days for the truth about what's going on in Syria, Yemen or Palestine to break on MSM.
Sadly, we have a lot of this going on. Those people don’t have networks to confirm sources and quite often lack simple understanding of regional politics. In Germany we have Todenhöfer, for a long time poster child of the Russian apologetics, who went to Syria as well to „investigate“ on the ground, interviewing „rebels“ and „Isis commanders“ to expose the „hypocrisy“ of the west and how we should support the Russian intervention on Assad’s behalf.
Turned out a lot of the people he interviewed were army officials of Assad posing as something else.
I don't know about this but I do know that a very high percentage of males of suitable age have been in their army. There was a story not long ago about couples feigning pregnancy so the husband didn't have to return to the fighting. They're hard-pressed. Not easy I suppose, when thousands of heavily armed, well-paid terrorists are roaming around your country.
Nonsense. Israel provides full civil and religious rights to minorities who are citizens of the State.
Your point being? Todenhöfer fell into an Assad and Putin laid trap to let them appear in a better light by letting supposed member of "rebels" tell about "atrocities" and supposed "ISIS members" about their support by the CIA/the west. End of story. Got nothing to do with what you said, this was just plain and simple "fake news". And there is tons of that in the so called "non MSM media", even if they mean well.
You very carefully worded that. Those who are citizens of the state. All the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza are disenfranchised, as they live under Israeli control, essentially an apartheid system.
I'm interested now. As I said, I didn't know about this. Does this mean you doubt that ISIS commits atrocities? What about the claim that the US supplied TOWs to the FSA knowing that they would be passed on to ISIS? Or the claim that US forces repeatedly attacked SAA troops enroute to attack ISIS near Deir Ezzor? Is that fake?
The Palestinian Authority are responsible for holding elections:
2007 Election Laws
https://www.palestinianbasiclaw.org/election-laws/2007-presidential-decree
2005 Local Election Laws
https://www.palestinianbasiclaw.org/election-laws/2005-local-elections-law
Symbolic, they hold no power as Israel dictates what happens in the occupied territories
Thanks, that's a genuinely interesting post. Do you have an idea what the age and ethnic profile of these protestors you spoke to was?
Is this the film they've stopped from airing in some countries?
He spends a ton of time gathering them all up. Hope he leaves time for sleep and the occasional shower.